Monday, November 4, 2013
The New York Times has an interesting article today about how a small Iowa city--like other small cities around the country--is witnessing the influx of campaign money from the Koch bothers' libertarian Americans For Prosperity group. The influx of outsider money is receiving a skeptical response in the liberal-leaning area. For readers of this blog, perhaps of equal interest is what is buried deep in the article: that the major issue in the community is debt the city took on through a tax-increment financed development. From the article:
A central issue in Coralville’s elections is the city’s decision to borrow tens of millions of dollars to turn a once-blighted stretch of riverfront into a development called the Iowa River Landing. The city retained ownership of some of the buildings, including a Marriott hotel and convention center and a brewery. City officials also lured a Von Maur department store to the development with as much as $16 million in incentives.
“I don’t think government should operate private enterprise,” said Mark Winkler, a City Council candidate the citizens group has backed. “Government should own libraries, police stations.”
Critics complain that the debt has prevented the city from lowering property tax rates. They also complain that the complex rules of tax-increment financing siphon property tax money away from the schools, leading the state to pay $2.5 million toward Coralville schools each year.
But city officials argue that their investments have helped the economy boom — $757 million in retail sales last year, a more than fourfold increase since 1997 — and that the debt will be paid. They blame General Growth for stirring much of the criticism, saying the developer was upset that Von Maur went to the Iowa River Landing and not the mall.
To me, this raises the question of whether libertarian groups, like those funded by the Koch brothers, will aggressively go after public-private partnerships generally. And if they do, will that raise the ire of traditioanl conservatives, such as those often found in the real estate and development communities who often need such public funding mechanisms to make large private projects a reality?
Perhaps this will become one way in which the larger "civil war" within the Republican party plays out in land use issues.
Stephen R. Miller
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances